Regardless of your feelings or beliefs about sending more U.S troops to Iraq, you must accept the painful truth that anything we do to salvage or strengthen the existing Shia-dominated government in Iraq redounds to the benefit of Iran. If we weigh in on the side of the Sunni insurgents we run a serious risk that the Shias will attack us in strength and, at least for the short time, cut our supply lines that run through the heart of Shia territory. Moreover, anything we do to militarily challenge Iran will weaken our influence in Iraq and jeopardize the mission of our forces in Iraq.

George Bush has made his choice and it is calamitous. He rejected out of hand the proposal to "Go Home". And dismissed the "Go Long" course of action, which would have emphasized counterinsurgency, public works vice combat, and diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria. Instead, he has thrown his weight behind "Go Strong".

The key elements of the "go strong" plan are outlined in the accompanying analysis by Pat Lang (see Stalingrad on the Tigris?). What is not yet announced, but implicit in the plan, is a direct attack on Moqtada al Sadr and his militia, the Jayshi al Mahdi (JAM). During their meeting in Jordan last month, George Bush reportedly told Maliki in no uncertain terms that he would have to separate himself from al Sadr or become a casualty in the upcoming offensive against the bearded cleric. Ironically, Moqtada al Sadr has discouraged sectartian strife rather than egged it on and, among the various Shia clerics, is more receptive to working with Sunni counterparts to rebuild Iraq.

It is no surpise that Maliki returned to Iraq and is
making a desperate bid to align himself now with Hakim and the
"moderates" in the current government and is signaling he will abandon
al Sadr. Bush, in his zeal for a deal in Iraq, is either ignorant or
oblivious to the fact the al Hakim (a recent visitor to the White
House) is closely aligned with Iran; in contrast to al Sadr who is more
independent. Notwithstanding these facts the "Decider"-in-Chief" has
rolled the dice and will try to rub out Sadr's JAM. He also is betting
he can do so without provoking a full scale revolt among the Shia.

Ah, but here's the rub. When you attack al Sadr you elevate his status.
He becomes the face of the Iraqi opposition. Unlike the Jordanian
Zarqawi, who met his end in June, a martyred al Sadr becomes more
powerful in life than in death. It is not a question of "will the Shia
retaliate"? They will. And in the process U.S. forces will once again
"make" news destroying neighborhoods and civilians in Sadr City as the
insurgent forces melt away; just as we did and they did in Fallujah.

But unlike Fallujah, the Shia can hurt us and hurt us bad. The vast
majority of the supplies--the food, water, bullets, and
bandages--sustaining our troops in Iraq flow from Kuwait in the south
along the highway the runs through the middle of Shia-controlled
territory in Iraq. If the Shia retaliate, as they have in the past, our
lines of communication will be in jeopardy, at least over the short
term.

This is more serious than going without toliet paper for a couple of
days. With the anticipated surge in troops to Baghdad the logistics
demands will increase. That makes the supplies from the south more, not
less, critical. The tactical challenge of keeping the resupply line
open is daunting. In June of this year one in every 20 convoys was
attacked while heading from Kuwait to Baghdad. Now that figure is
approaching one in every five. Most of these attacks appear to be the
work of criminal gangs intent on filling their pockets. But the ease
and frequency of these attacks should keep military commanders up at
night. A concerted effort could effectively shut down our resupply
effort. Any one remember Jessica Lynch and her ill-fated colleagues?

We also need to accept the fact that the ethnic partitioning of Iraq is
underway and the battle is focused in and around Baghdad. The Shia
essentially control the east half of Baghdad. The Sunni control the
west half. Scattered throughout the city (but primarily on the outer
suburbs) are mixed Sunni/Shia neighborhoods. That's where the fighting
is occuring So far the Shia appear to have the upper hand.

Early last week President Bush was touting the body count of insurgents
and implying things were getting better in Iraq. But he failed to
report that notwithstanding the insurgent bodies we are stacking up
that the level of violence has continued to soar. The last three months
in Iraq--September, October, and November--have been the most violent
since George Bush announced Mission Accomplished. And December is on
track to keep pace with this disturbing trend. With more troops headed
into the fray more of our boys and girls will be added to the casualty
lists.

Now that Bush has taken the Go Home and Go Long options off of the
table we also should acknowledge that whether intended or not (and I
believe it was intentional) the President has tied Bob Gates' hands,
much to the relief of the neo-cons. Gates faces a senior military
leadership roiled by dissent and disgust. Many are appalled that they
are being blamed for the fiasco in Iraq because they followed the
orders and dictates of Bush and his political appointees. Some, like
Pete Schoomacher, have seized the initiative and are going to speak
candidly without regard to the effect on their careers. Schoomacher,
who was called back from retirement, really does not give a shit if he
is rocking the boat as long as he his certain that he is acting in the
best interest of his soldiers and his country.

I am waiting for the Congress to wake up and realize that no one in the
military has done an assessment of our "progress" in the war. So far
the only written assessments have come from the CIA and the National
Intelligence Council. No one in either CENTCOM, SOCOM, JCS, or DIA
appears to have done an analysis of the trends. If they have it is the
best protected secret in the U.S. Governement. I think the Generals
learned from the fate of the two CIA station chiefs who provided their
stark assessment in the early days of the insurgency (they sent back
what is known as an AARDWOLF) about the disastrous course of the war
and wound up losing their jobs. So much for rewarding candor. The
military leadership got the message and has shied away from putting in
writing what many concede in private to be the case.

For now the focus is on Iraq, but do not imagine for a second that the
neo-cons and their patrons in the Bush Administration have given up
their quest to take down Iran. The dream is alive. Iran is the longterm
obsession. What the Bushies in their zeal fail to realize is that their
efforts to get control over events in Iraq are destined to backfire and
will make it more difficult to contain the threat they claim we face
from Iran. Bush and Cheney don't have a learning curve, it is a flat
line.

Waiting for Congress to wake up
Assuming Bush has rejected Go Home and Go Long in favor of Go Strong, what interests me is how the new Democratic majority in the House will react to the ploy of forcing a Congressional vote to escalate, rather than de-escalate, the US military occupation presence (in the name of bi-partisan compromise).

In one swell foop, Bush and the neocons give John McCain what he says he wants (another 30,000 or so troops in harm's way), while simultaneously forcing the Dems to either "betray the troops in the field" or else betray all those anti-Iraq war voters who just gave them their 2006 electoral mandate. If the White House's reaction to getting thumped at the polls is to escalate the war rather than to begin a phased withdrawal/redeployment, it's definitely time to do some major demonstrating inside the beltway, to remind Pelosi & the DNC brain trust that the issue that put them in power can also be their party's downfall.